Badmovies.org Forum

Indy told me that John Wayne's The Alamo (1960) is historically inaccurate for a lot of reasons but Clint Eastwood's Invictus (2009) is, from a South African perspective, the most historically wrong film ever made. I actually walked out and requested a refund (and I wasn't the only person who did that).

Any others (Attenborough's Gandhi also comes to mind)?

BRAVEHEART has many differences from the actual story. It doesn't deter that much, but still. I don't really care to be honest because it's an amazing film. Same goes for GLADIATOR.

Oh dear.   Pick one.  Any one. 

 :teddyr: :teddyr:

Every movie that's based on a true story is bullsh!t.
Except maybe PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE (1959).

If Criswell says it happened- then it happened!

(https://i.imgur.com/nroV6qh.gif) (https://lunapic.com)

U-571. The Royal Navy had captured a German submarine and its Enigma machine before the US even entered the war.

Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story suggests that Bruce suffered a back injury in a fight.

No. There was a fight, and he won, but it was a near thing because his opponent was in much better shape than he was, so he decided he need to train up. So he promptly tried to lift too much weight and basically broke his own back.

As a Bruce Lee fan who had read a lot about him prior to watching Dragon, that part of the movie really stuck out to me.

Another that comes to mind is Argo (2012), where a big thing was made about the Americans saving them, but they played a secondary or even tertiary role in the situation, with the Canadian, British and New Zealand governments playing parts.

FLYBOYS got virtually nothing about the Lafayette Escadrille right (but it was still a very fun movie).

Inglorious Basterds

The one thing they did get right was to show how dangerous nitrate film is  :buggedout:

If it says "Based on a True Story" you better take a grain of salt.

Do I still enjoy the likes of John Carpenter's Elvis, Man on the Moon, Ed Wood and Dolemite Is My Name? Sure. Are there liberties taken? You better believe it.

Best line to take away from in Man on the Moon "All the most important things in my life are changed around and mixed up for dramatic purposes."

ABRAHAM LINCOLN, VAMPIRE HUNTER

in this film the Whitehouse is depicted as having a second floor balcony - something that was not constructed until after Lincoln's presidency.

Yeah. That's what is inaccurate about that movie.  :bouncegiggle:

Also, when you watch the Disney movie HAMILTON, it's worth noting that some of those extended musical numbers never happened in real life.
And female dancers did not attend cabinet meetings.

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood

Definitely: the depictions of Sharon Tate and Bruce Lee made me a little angry.

Bruce Lee walked the walk and talked the talk: he wasn't as depicted in the film.

 :teddyr: :teddyr:

Looking at all the nonsense our govt leaders get up to, I'm not surprised  :wink:

Amadeus. Fine film, poor history.

All Quiet on the Western Front. Netflix's new version not only poorly represents the novel, it distorts history past the recognizable, though doubtless it did get the horrors of the war correct.

Sweeney Todd. Generally Sondheim has left the exact date vague but on stage the clothing was roughly mid-19th century, and in Tim Burton's amazing film, Tower Bridge is shown in the background, despite the fact it wouldn't be built until the late 1880s.

Pride and Prejudice (1940) had the cast dressing in hoop skirts which would not have been  proper attire for at least fifty years after the book's time period.

Yes, John Wayne's The Alamo is a mess, but when an accurate version was released in 2004, people kvetched about details that were completely accurate.

Matewan, 1987, was a very good movie that got almost everything right but inexplicably left out the coal company trying to spread fears of Communist agitation among those seeking to unionize the miners. For generations "Red Panic" was used to cast the coal company in a positive, patriotic light. I'm surprised this wasn't emphasized. Supposedly, according to my neighbor as a kid, when President Reagan visited West Virginia, he said something praising the big coal's efforts to keep "the Reds" out of Appalachia. Anyway....

The Right Stuff. Unlike the 1980s movie, Disney's recent version was a cluterflunk of inaccuracies and downer storytelling.

Not that historical accuracy was in any way the goal.

 

 :bouncegiggle:

I remember articles about two: Saving Private Ryan and The Last Samurai.

The first involved highly experienced German soldiers entering a town with armor and infantry. Usually, they'd send in scouts followed by storm troopers who would enter buildings around the path.

For the second, the rebel samurai (which made up a minority as the majority joined the government to work as bureaucrats) were actually fighting for better compensation from the government. Also, they fought like their opponents, wearing Western uniforms, using captured small arms and artillery, etc.

Finally, the government troopers, which consisted mostly of young men, fought bravely and did well.

I'm pretty sure Mel Brook's History of the World Part 1 wasn't exactly accurate. 

I might be mistaken though.

Yeah, did you catch that one part too?  El Al was totally not around back then.

Zulu (1964) is also pretty inaccurate although it is a great movie.